How do you feel about Candace Parker's C-cup being referenced in this lede?

Sharapova is a poor choice for the point you're trying to make, given that she's won three majors, been ranked No. 1, etc. Anna would prove your point more.

 

I haven't read the article, but I plan to. Even though I haven't picked up ESPN Mag in months. My first reaction was "god bless ESPN for putting pregnant Candace Parker on its cover." It's a great shot. It's a horrid, double-entendre cover line next to it.

As for the lede, it's totally something you would find in a formulaic Allure feature or a trying-to-be-brash Jane feature and maybe a trying-to-be-sexy-because-we-know-your-boyfriend-reads Cosmo feature. Trying-really-hard-to-do-good-journalism-yet-still-please-advertisers Glamour wouldn't touch this one.

Maybe this was the one publication that feels it can get away with this, a double-boob reference in the first graf to please the boys, but written by a female to stave off any backlash.

Having not read the story, I don't know that I'll go so far as to say the boob reference was unnecessary. It's a story about her pregnancy and how it relates to what she does for a living, which hinges on her body. In a non-sexual way, it could be relevant. "Candace's breasts grew three sizes, requiring her to donate her collection of 256 sports bras and influencing Nike to start a successful line of nursing sports bras."

 

I agree with forever_town. I read the story yesterday and didn't see a need for the reference.

If she's such a great athlete, there's no need to talk about her cup size. This isn't Maxim or FHM. Talking about her flawless skin is fine - and spot-on. You can describe how beautiful she is without going into the discussion of bras.

I'm sure the writer just casually brought up the topic of breasts. "I'm a C. What are you?" You know, chicks do that stuff all the time, even journalists.

There have been times that Tom Brady has been called a ladies man. But never did I read anything about the size of his member or how many chicks he banged. And I would never ask someone about that.

ESPN The Mag just took another step down the ladder of journalistic respectability. But I still cannot stand Simmons.

 

Depends on the chick. I certainly don't know the cup size of my female coworkers. I don't think I'd bring it up in an interview, either as the subject or the reporter. But that's not to say I'm a prude about it either. If the topic is on the table, I'll discuss. But it's not always on the table, even among chicks.

 

I have a feeling that line is being repeated and will continue to be repeated -- in vain -- at publications as it becomes more difficult to compete for advertising dollars with those who covet the demographic we're discussing, and the line in the sand is going to keep moving, bit by bit.

 

How are we supposed to believe this conversation between profiler and profilee played out though:

Glock: You're very pretty.

Paker: Thank you.

Glock: Let's talk about your breasts for a second.

Paker: Um, ok.

Glock: I've noticed you tend to not flaunt them very much.

Paker: It's true.

Glock: You should be proud of them. They're very nice.

Parker: Thank you. I am.

Glock: C-cup?

Parker: Yes.


I wager at no point does Paker say she is "proud" of her breasts. That strikes me as something Glock simply inferred by hanging out with Parker, at best.


I do look forward to Gatorade's new marketing campaign for her.

Sometimes I dream,
that she is me.
And I could have breasts the cup size of C!

Bum, bum, ba, bum!

 

It's not a question of being offended, it doesn't offend me. It annoys me. It comes off as a gratuitous reference for no apparent reason other than to talk about boobs. Is she less marketable or popular if she's a B cup? Would she be more marketable if she was a D cup? What's the point?

 

They appear larger when they're on the table, so it's a bit misleading. A B looks like a C, a C looks like a D.

 

I Digress' post was much more pissy about it, which is where I got the "offended" from. Not yours.

It's gratuitous, but no more gratuitous than talking about Anderson Varejao's hair or Allen Iverson cutting off his braids or the size of Shaq's feet. The entire story was about trying to market a woman in a team sport to a nation that really doesn't care. Showing that she looks like a model, can do commercials, etc., falls into that for me.

 

For one thing, a male writer couldn't get away with that lead, but then again, I've read too many Mark Sanchez is an Adonis stuff from male writers, so maybe it's just me.
I guess the thing that strikes me is that if this was for a women's mag, I'd totally get it. She can drain a 30-foot jumper and fill out a dress. In a mag with a primarily male audience it seems to make the case that her looks are as important as her skill as a player. You just don't seem men written about the same way.

 

I can't answer this without knowing whether she's bootylicious, which the story failed to address.

 

I got my copy of the latest ESPN: The Magazine today.
There's Candace Parker on the cover with her pregnancy clearly evident.
Okay, how many national mags have now had covers with pregnant ladies on the front?
Hasn't this gotten old?
I know, I know. She's a "name" and famous in the world of sports.
At one time, maybe this type of "bare all" photo op was innovative, cute or pushing the envelope.
No more, in my opinion.
And one C-cup reference, by the way, was enough. The second time? Overdone.